Over 93% of BLM demonstrations are non-violent (4 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    First Time Poster

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 8, 2019
    Messages
    305
    Reaction score
    1,556
    Age
    43
    Location
    Louisiana, Georgia, Texas
    Offline
    So, rather than burying this subject in an already broad thread I felt this topic, and the study it is based on, deserved its own thread. A debate about whether the protests have been mostly violent or not has been had multiple times in multiple threads so when I saw this analysis it piqued my interest.

    A few key points: It characterizes the BLM movement as "an overwhelmingly peaceful movement." Most of the violent demonstrations were surrounding Confederate monuments. To this mostly non-violent movement, the government has responded violently, and disproportionately so, to BLM than other demonstrations, including a militarized federal response. The media has, also, been targeted by this violent government response. There is a high rate of non-state actor involvement in BLM demonstrations. Lastly, there is a rising number of counter-protest that turn violent. I shouldn't say lastly because there is, also, a lot of data relating to Covid too.

    The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) begin tracking BLM demonstrations since this summer, the week of George Floyd's killing. I am linking the entire study for all to read. I am highlighting excerpts I personally found interesting.


    The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent (see map below). In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations, meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests. In many urban areas like Portland, Oregon, for example, which has seen sustained unrest since Floyd’s killing, violent demonstrations are largely confined to specific blocks, rather than dispersed throughout the city (CNN, 1 September 2020).

    Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020).

    Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing (Washington Post, 24 August 2020), such as disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020). Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have documented organized disinformation campaigns aimed at spreading a “deliberate mischaracterization of groups or movements [involved in the protests], such as portraying activists who support Black Lives Matter as violent extremists or claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization coordinated or manipulated by nebulous external forces” (ADL, 2020). These disinformation campaigns may be contributing to the decline in public support for the BLM movement after the initial increase following Floyd’s killing, especially amongst the white population (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 30 August 2020a, 30 August 2020b). This waning support also comes as the Trump administration recently shifted its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020).

    Despite the fact that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement have been overwhelmingly peaceful, more than 9% — or nearly one in 10 — have been met with government intervention, compared to 3% of all other demonstrations. This also marks a general increase in intervention rates relative to this time last year. In July 2019, authorities intervened in under 2% of all demonstrations — fewer than 30 events — relative to July 2020, when they intervened in 9% of all demonstrations — or over 170 events.

    Authorities have used force — such as firing less-lethal weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray or beating demonstrators with batons — in over 54% of the demonstrations in which they have engaged. This too is a significant increase relative to one year ago. In July 2019, government personnel used force in just three documented demonstrations, compared to July 2020, when they used force against demonstrators in at least 65 events. Over 5% of all events linked to the BLM movement have been met with force by authorities, compared to under 1% of all other demonstrations.

    Non-state groups are becoming more active and assertive. Since May, ACLED records over 100 events in which non-state actors engaged in demonstrations (including counter-demonstrations) — the vast majority of which were in response to demonstrations associated with the BLM movement. These non-state actors include groups and militias from both the left and right side of the political spectrum, such as Antifa, the Not forking Around Coalition, the New Mexico Civil Guard, the Patriot Front, the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Bois, and the Ku Klux Klan, among others (see map below).3

    Between 24 May and 22 August, over 360 counter-protests were recorded around the country, accounting for nearly 5% of all demonstrations. Of these, 43 — nearly 12% — turned violent, with clashes between pro-police demonstrators and demonstrators associated with the BLM movement, for example. In July alone, ACLED records over 160 counter-protests, or more than 8% of all demonstrations. Of these, 18 turned violent. This is a significant increase relative to July 2019, when only 17 counter-protests were reported around the country, or approximately 1% of all demonstrations, and only one of these allegedly turned violent.
     
    I figured you wouldn’t see it as similar, lol. But to me it is almost exactly the same. People who are just going about their own business shouldn’t be harassed. I guess you don’t agree with that. Seems a bit inconsistent.
     
    I figured you wouldn’t see it as similar, lol. But to me it is almost exactly the same. People who are just going about their own business shouldn’t be harassed. I guess you don’t agree with that. Seems a bit inconsistent.
    I do agree with people shouldn't be harassed going about their day to day business (including strolling into the neighborhood abortion store).
    I don't agree that people being harassed because of their skin color is the same thing as being harassed because they are about to have an abortion. Like I said, one is a decision and one is a product of being born.
     
    Completely repugnant, I don't care who is covering it. These are children. They have no part to play in this. Any adult that participated in it should be ashamed of themselves.
    I agree -- I'm just wondering why these people were called "Black Lives Matter" protestors just because they said (or carried signs that said) the words "Black Lives Matter."
     
    It is almost completely opposite too me. One group is yelling at young ladies to feel guilty about aborting human life and the other is yelling at young women to feel guilty because of the color of their skin. One a person can change if they wanted to, the other is not.
    But I guess it comes down to core beliefs as to how you interpret the world around you.

    The two actions are very similar in the sense that they are accosting strangers on the street to raise awareness and tell them that they are doing wrong. The protestors shouting at the cheerleaders were pissed about white privilege, but also about class differences. They were making general assumptions from ignorance and history about the economic status and racial attitudes of the families doing the cheerleading. At least the lady the with the bullhorn said, "thank you."

    Planned Parenthood does a lot of other things besides abortions including annual wellness exams and other preventive care, cancer screenings, LEED surgery, certain vaccines, emergency contraception, counseling and more. Abortion is only a very small part of what they do, but gets all the attention because PP is sometimes the only abortion provider for hundreds of miles. There are lots of reasons women would go to PP other than to get an abortion. But protestors are again making assumptions from ignorance and history to harass patients.
     
    But I guess it comes down to core beliefs as to how you interpret the world around you.
    My core beliefs tell me that Children SHOULD NOT, under any circumstances, be harassed whether they are trying to enter a cheerleading contest or seek a procedure that is legal in this country. It seems from your statement that your core beliefs don't allow you to see the similarities in these two situations and also allows for harassment of children as long as you have a good enough reason.
     
    My core beliefs tell me that Children SHOULD NOT, under any circumstances, be harassed whether they are trying to enter a cheerleading contest or seek a procedure that is legal in this country. It seems from your statement that your core beliefs don't allow you to see the similarities in these two situations and also allows for harassment of children as long as you have a good enough reason.
    Cool. Try reading what I typed and then have a go at my core beliefs again. Well, here you go:
    I do agree with people shouldn't be harassed going about their day to day business (including strolling into the neighborhood abortion store).
    I don't agree that people being harassed because of their skin color is the same thing as being harassed because they are about to have an abortion. Like I said, one is a decision and one is a product of being born.

    I still think there is a difference between protesting and being openly racist. In that, you are correct. I also don't draw the distinction at children but rather to people.
     
    Last edited:
    I agree -- I'm just wondering why these people were called "Black Lives Matter" protestors just because they said (or carried signs that said) the words "Black Lives Matter."

    Why wouldn't they? Is there something you know that we don't? Fwiw, I don't know who they are or where they're from, but if they make the claim, then I would assume they're being honest until they're not.
     
    I agree -- I'm just wondering why these people were called "Black Lives Matter" protestors just because they said (or carried signs that said) the words "Black Lives Matter."
    I'm confused. The lady with the megaphone who gave an interview said she was a BLM organizer. Wouldn't that make her and the people protesting with her BLM protestors?

    What I'm really wondering here is if they scheduled this protest as a protest against the cheerleaders competition or if the two events just happened to cross paths.
     
    I don't agree that people being harassed because of their skin color is the same thing as being harassed because they are about to have an abortion. Like I said, one is a decision and one is a product of being born.
    Yeah, I saw your first sentence and then I continued reading your next sentence which I quoted above. Why is there a need to differentiate between the two situations when in both cases, kids are being harassed. If you truly believe what you said in the first sentence, there is no need to try to qualify it based on the reason for the harassment. Harassment is harassment whether it is due to entering a cheerleading competition or having a legal procedure.
     
    Yeah, I saw your first sentence and then I continued reading your next sentence which I quoted above. Why is there a need to differentiate between the two situations when in both cases, kids are being harassed. If you truly believe what you said in the first sentence, there is no need to try to qualify it based on the reason for the harassment. Harassment is harassment whether it is due to entering a cheerleading competition or having a legal procedure.
    So, by your statement above all harassments is equal. If someone dressed in a Klan outfit is yelling at black people walking down the street because they are black and then I start yelling at that Klan member for yelling at black people, it is one and the same and we are both guilty of harassment. Harassment is Harassment.

    One man is yelling at people based on their skin.
    One man is yelling at a person for something he actively and consciously chose to do. Lets say he is putting decaffeinated coffee in a regular coffee pot. Still the same?

    No, that is silly and you know it. Everyone knows it.
    You just have a desire to also defend PP and abortions. That is fine, I am not discussing abortions, I am discussing action verses something that cannot be helped by a person.
     
    can anyone find actual reporting on this
    the organizer's name is listed as "Amber Brown" but this is the only story that comes up connected to that name
    they interview a local pastor who will neither condemn not condone the protest
    none of the parents will go on record for fear of retaliation

    this is an odd story

    There’s video of it. There’s like a dozen protestors outside the convention center and a woman with a bull horn yells at some of the kids. I don’t think it’s a major story, but still frustrating
     
    There’s video of it. There’s like a dozen protestors outside the convention center and a woman with a bull horn yells at some of the kids. I don’t think it’s a major story, but still frustrating
    i didn't click the video bc i'm at work - does the video provide context?
    what? seems obvious - but who? why? any clarity about that?
     
    i didn't click the video bc i'm at work - does the video provide context?
    what? seems obvious - but who? why? any clarity about that?
    It provides context and clarity to any rational person. I also noticed a lot of our fellow citizens open carrying in the video. But I like that
     
    Why wouldn't they? Is there something you know that we don't? Fwiw, I don't know who they are or where they're from, but if they make the claim, then I would assume they're being honest until they're not.
    I'm confused. The lady with the megaphone who gave an interview said she was a BLM organizer. Wouldn't that make her and the people protesting with her BLM protestors?
    AFAIK, she isn't a BLM organizer. She's an organizer, and founded another group and is a member of a third, but I haven't found where this was organized by BLM national or Louisville.

    "Jones is a member of the Kentucky Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression and founded the Black Women's Collective in the summer."


    There's nothing on the BLM Louisville Twitter talking about organizing this, discussing it, promoting it, or even talking about the press around it.


    Nothing on BLM Louisville Twitter or social media presence that I can find where Carmen M Jones is mentioned, must less listed as an organizer or leader.
     
    It provides context and clarity to any rational person. I also noticed a lot of our fellow citizens open carrying in the video. But I like that
    k, so i was able to watch this - all of the tv report
    i am curious what your rational person take away is vis a vis context and clarity
    what did you see & hear (i'm curious if it's what was actually reported)
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom